Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday January 14, 2010 @05:28PM
from the freedom-of-somethingeruther dept.

megamerican writes "President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories' like the ones surrounding 9/11 via 'chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine' those groups. Sunstein admits that 'some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true' Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. You can find a PDF of his paper here. For decades (1956-1971), the FBI under COINTELPRO focused on disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, most notably the Black Panthers. More recently CENTCOM announced it would be engaging bloggers 'who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information.' In January 2009 the USAF released a flow-chart for 'counter-bloggers' to 'counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.'"

If you are willing to give up your liberty for security, you will get neither liberty or security.

No matter how secure a nation makes itself, it is still vulnerable to attack by citizens or foreign nationals. The Idea of liberty is that citizens actively participate in the security of their nation by allowing citizens the freedom to keep and bear arms. At the start The President of the United States walked around without security and among dissenters themselves wearing guns. The idea was that as an elected leader he would be protected by his fellow Americans.

Now the roles have reversed and we are kept swine for the government to protect. It is almost more of a crime to protect yourself from a criminal than it is for them to visit hostilities upon you.

I don't know, they're blogs and chat groups. Open to all, generally. I see it as a legitimate use. It's no more subversive than any other astroturfer would be, and such postings are pretty easy to recognise. Now, if they actually blocked content or filtered it in any way (you listening, Conroy?) then that would be truly evil.

Yeah well I fucking hate "astroturfers" and marketeers disguising themselves as customers in forums, and having the government do it is ten times worse.

Sure it's not nearly as evil as actually shutting down or censoring the content on forums, but that doesn't mean I like it.

I mean, as an academic paper about conspiracy theories and how they could be defused, it doesn't sound that terrible*. As a government policy? It's shitty, and I don't like it. If the government wants to make more information/propaganda available officially, that's fine with me. Hiding the source of information presented to the people is not how our government should work. Fuck that.

* The observation from the paper that a conspiracy theorist would not believe someone who is coming from an organization involved in the conspiracy is obviously true. And it's also true I think that conspiracy theories can come from having insufficient information (rather than simple craziness). I thought there was some sense behind some of the 9/11 conspiracies... until I talked to a civil engineer who explained to me what would happen when the steel in a skyscraper was merely heated enough to weaken.

He proposed not just blocking content, but actually banning certain content. In particular, he proposed banning "conspiracy theories". He outright admits that some of the "conspiracy theories" that he would ban could be true. He gives examples of several things that would meet his definition of "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be true (Watergate for one). This is not someone reading his definition and saying it would apply, he says himself that, by his definition, discussion of these would have been

Remember when the left-wingers merely suspected GWB of thinking about possibly doing something similar and how apeshit crazy they went over that slim possibility?

Where are those people now?

Uh.... right here? Or are you trying to say that if one person on slashdot says something, every person on slashdot must say the same thing as well? Cuz I can't help you with that.

It was a dumb thing then, it's a dumb thing now, and I hope Sunstein gets crucified for even suggesting that. This is the kind of crap that I'm willing to hold against Obama come election day. His only chance then would be to run against Palin.

Heh, I posted this before I read the actual article, and before I took a look at the rest of the WND site. I guess I should stop believing that front page stories on slashdot won't take their main arguments from a crackpot site.

Let me rephrase: if Sunstein would propose something like the summary suggests, he should be crucified and run out of office. His actual paper, however, is merely something I disagree with: that hardcore conspiracy theorists can be reasoned with. I don't think we have the resources to engage in every online forum where someone says something crazy. I believe a far better approach is to identify rumors and conspiracies, and use an existing official vehicle to debunk them.

Now, part of the new job of that official vehicle could be to more actively participate in social media - but that's a far cry from the discussed idea to actually go to online forums and take these people head-on. Cultivate ties and make sure your voice heard - but don't try to chase down every nutcase on the web.

State-sponsored infiltration is NOT free speech. Free speech means the government doesn't control (nor attempt to influence) what people are discussing. Planting paid 'experts' in strategic locations to diffuse conversation is so far from unrestricted speech that I can only assume you have no idea what's actually being suggested.

Observe:

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

In a negative light, this means "find the people saying things we don't like and replace them with people who say what we want."

And despite the meme at play, this is NOT a conspiracy theory, it is exactly what he is proposing.

In a negative light, this means "find the people saying things we don't like and replace them with people who say what we want."

I'm sure it depends a lot on how you look at it. The devil is in the details.

There are a lot of echo chambers out there where some pretty odd ideas get kicked around. I define this in the "ZOMG! OBAMA IS A SECRET MUSLIM AND WANTS THE WIMMIN OF AMERICA TO WEAR BURKAS!" category. If you think the US government is spending too much, borrowing too much, or that the health care plan is a Really Bad Idea... Well, we have freedom of speech and you're allowed to say that. I suppose you're also allowed to say the president is a secret Muslim.

What Sunstein is advocating requires a very close reading. He is suggesting that subject matter experts go into these groups to set the record straight. He also says that SMEs MUST be kept at arms-length from employees of the Federal government. The minute that anyone in these areas gets the idea that someone is a bought and paid shill for the government, the game is over. That person is branded a shill and their word is worthless.

It seems to me to be an interesting thought experiment, but almost impossible to implement as policy. We're talking about a group of people with VERY sensitive antenna about the comings and goings of the Federal government. If there is an open information program with a budget and a line item to buy the time of SMEs to "get the story out", the game is up. If there's a secret program, it has to stay secret. The moment anyone says anything, not only will the intended targets go ape, a lot of people like me who don't reflexively mistrust the government but are wary of state power in general will also get upset.

Excuse? No! Screw that, man. It's bad. But I wanted to correct any misconceptions the article may have caused. It IS NOT as bad as COINTELPRO. Not by a long shot. I have family who were impacted by COINTELPRO, and I can tell you, that was horrendous. This is merely wrong, as opposed to evil.

Just to be clear: the idea of banning any website, even Nazi or KKK websites, is wrong. So is requiring 'fairness' for websites. The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource, but not for privately held resources like websites.

Oh man! Cut to the chase shall we? The Fairness Doctrine is aimed squarely at Rush Limbaugh. The Democrat party has a major hard-on for getting rid of him. Had it been any other time or country, the military would have assassinated him AND his family long ago. He pisses them off that badly!!!

So what do Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore have in common? They both exercise the 1st Amendment to its fullest. Very brave of them!

That said, while I tend to agree with Rush more often than not, I think that both of those two men are extreme. I also think that is good. The day extremest views are suppressed is the day I can start my countdown to being censored as well.

KKKBlack Panthers (what's left at least)RushMichaelthat coast to coast guy (what's his name?)all are good signs that our constitution works (even if I think they are kookey)-nB

...I really never thought I'd live to see the day when someone praised Moore and Limbaugh in the same sentence.

As far as Limbaugh goes, I forgot when the spirit of the 1st amendment was so people could encourage things like this [wikipedia.org]...

The dream end of [Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here.

The other day I listened to this man opine about how it would be irresponsible to expect taxpayers to pay for a lifesaving operation if you could not afford it yourself. Just die if you can't pay was the message.

But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.

Nearly every political pundit TV show seems to have panels. They bring on people who have views that may or may not differ with the host and they argue.

Radio shows generally will let you call in and argue with the host.

I see no shortage of view offered on the American radio or TV. I see no reason to impose quotas on different points of view. The fairness doctrine is a solution in search of a problem and the idea of taxpayer funds being used to hire bloggers to promote an agenda is a gross abuse of power.

We need to get past this two party nonsense and get more diverse political viewpoints, and the Fairness Doctrine won't get us there.

The reason for America's rigid two party system is due to the way elections work, not due to American mindsets. We generally elect people through simple pluralities to single seat districts. In many European countries they have variations of proportional representation. People vote for parties rather than specific candidates and candidates are apportioned based on party turnout. Thus a party with voters that aren't strong enough in any particular area to win a plurality can still win seats.

The real impact this has is on how a party gets what it wants. In European countries an election is held. Normally a parliament will be split with several large centrist parties holding most seats. They will then have to offer up compromises with radical small parties to form coalitions so a Prime Minister can be selected. If there is no compromise then parliements are "hung" and usually get dissolved by another election or votes of no confidence (a majority may remove a Prime Minister at any time for any reason) break up the divided government.

In America we don't need to form coalitions after an election, those coalitions never move. From Lincoln to today, Republicans have long been a center-right collection of businessmen, libertarians (small "l"), and deeply religious people. The Democrats have long been center-left minded people who felt that they needed to help groups that they felt needed special treatment by society through government intervention. From Andrew Jackson to Obama, the group de jure has changed, the mindset hasn't.

In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism. In order for a bill to pass it must be approved of by the House, the Senate (and it normally must be 60% of the Senate or else the bill is procedurally killed by fillibuster), and the President. When a bill can't pass the leadership in Congress or the President will normally have to convince the most moderate members to go along, usually by changing the bill to a more moderate version. In order to win office one must not be to radical, or voters will be scared. A Presidential Candidate needs to spend most of his time worrying about how the most moderate "swing states" will vote. You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you. Control of the House and Senate depend upon the centerist districts and states.

I like the way our system works. I like appealing to the center rather than the fringe. There is a lot of room for improvement, such as eliminating gerrymandering, reforming primaries and cacauses, and amending the constitution to enact a budget line-item veto (preferably one that also mandates a balanced budget) to eliminate pork would all be nice starts.

Worse, one could legitimately suggest the reason these shows suck in ratings is because people do hear their message and reject it.

The reason conservative talk does well but liberal talk does poorly is just because there is a demographic in the coservative movement that just isn't that big on the left: people in their cars going to work.

If only that is what they are proposing to do, that would be fine. Let the arguments stand on their own merit, and let people decide without coercion. Particularly without using any government agents to influence the conversation through infiltration.

Realism is calling, it wants you to acknowledge that most paranoid delusionists aren't going to decide arguments on their merits but on how closely the argument feeds their own paranoia.

This is a good idea/bad idea moment.

Good idea: Infiltrating said groups and using facts to undermine and destroy the leadership's control over the group by disproving their theories.

Bad idea: Infiltrating said groups and using lies and manipulation to undermine and destroy the leadership's control over the group by pretending to disprove their theories and by smearing their reputation.

The problem is, Good idea can slip into Bad idea quite easily. That's not a failure of ethics, it's a failure of judgment.

That's very valid and would need to be kept in mind while TREATING people with the types of paranoias that lead them to be vulnerable to "charismatic leaders", or focusing on getting individuals away from cults (or relationships)where they are being exploited by people who target those with poor mental health.

But the Government is not talking about that. They are talking countering anti-government propaganda. And what might be valid to prevent another Jones Town suicide situation, is not valid to interfer

So we need a final arbiter of the truth... and that truth is the government.

Yes, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that idea.

Face it: the very fact that there is no source of indisputable truths, no objective source of morality, and no guidebook on how to live life means that people are ultimately left to their own devices to determine who is right and wrong, what is good and evil, so on and so forth. You can't just point to someone and say "they get to tell us what the truth is." That's religion.

And yes, that means some people will be hopelessly wrong, and some will believe terrible things. Deal with it.

For most people by far the majority, the conspiracy sites are nothing more than entertainment and light reading, quite a lot of fun in fact. Sure I know there a two basic types, those in it for a profit trying to inflame craziness in the hopes of selling advertising space and various other bits of junk and others well have a bit of a slippery grasp on reality. The big difference between the two is of course the for profit conspiracy sites are a lot better and of course the other one can be a little sad (th

Yes, it's quite horrible that people spreading mistruth to the public would have their lies exposed and debunked. Oh the horror!

The fact that they take it so seriously and treat it like such a threat makes me wonder if it's "mistruth". It makes me wonder that far more so than anything the "conspiracy nuts" themselves could have said.

Let's just say that everything the "conspiracy nuts" say is 100% false. Let's say further that too many (whatever that means) people are believing these conspiracy theories. The correct way to deal with that is to teach critical thinking, logic, rhetoric, and argumentation as mandatory basic courses in all public schools. Make these classes tough so that no one graduates without knowing how to deconstruct an argument. Except they'd rather not do that, because such a tough-minded populace would demand higher-quality legislators (they'd probably call them malcontents). Dumb people with a group mentality are so much easier to control than staunch individualists who can think for themselves.

Very insightful. I used to be very critical of Charlotte Iserbyt (author of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"), because I thought her title and viewpoint were overly inflammatory, that, yes, there was too much incompetence and bad ideas in the educational system and our outcomes were falling behind those of other countries. But I've changed my mind lately. I'm convinced that it is deliberate. So my apologies for statements I made about Charlotte Iserbyt in the past.

The thing about the "conspiracy nuts" is that their ideas would never get so much traction if 100% of what they say is false. There is an absence of clear and credible answers, too many inconsistencies in the official stories, and not enough real information. So all kinds of crazy ideas spring out of that.

The problem with Sunstein's plan is that he wants to create infiltrators that parrot the official story, not just to shut down the crazy theories, but to get rid of the questions. And questioning government is vital to a democracy. When government has control of every side of the message, then, yes, all conspiracy theories go away, but so do any questions about what they are doing. And that's bad.

Very insightful. I used to be very critical of Charlotte Iserbyt (author of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America"), because I thought her title and viewpoint were overly inflammatory, that, yes, there was too much incompetence and bad ideas in the educational system and our outcomes were falling behind those of other countries. But I've changed my mind lately. I'm convinced that it is deliberate. So my apologies for statements I made about Charlotte Iserbyt in the past.

The thing about the "conspiracy nuts" is that their ideas would never get so much traction if 100% of what they say is false. There is an absence of clear and credible answers, too many inconsistencies in the official stories, and not enough real information. So all kinds of crazy ideas spring out of that.

The problem with Sunstein's plan is that he wants to create infiltrators that parrot the official story, not just to shut down the crazy theories, but to get rid of the questions. And questioning government is vital to a democracy. When government has control of every side of the message, then, yes, all conspiracy theories go away, but so do any questions about what they are doing. And that's bad.

Anyone who honestly and thoroughly researches the topic and has enough guts to go wherever the facts may lead them will ultimately be forced to come to the same conclusion. The really funny thing is, the deliberate nature of it is almost obvious, provided one has the skill of totally disregarding anything that is said and instead examining the sum total of the actions that are taken. That's easier said than done and your first obstacle is the fact that you'd rather not believe it (this is one reason it ta

The primary difference is in disclosure. In a news/talk show the white house talking head has a pretty little bar at the bottom of the screen that says their name, and something along the lines of "White House Talking Head".

When agents of the government, ANY GOVERNMENT, begin executing informational warfare tactics on free people it is the duty of those people to fight back.

I am well acquainted with Professor Sunstein and his writings, and the above "summary" is a smear job and some extreme misdirection.

It starts with a link to an article on World Net Daily, which is the paper which published "research" stating that eating soybeans would make you gay. They are a well-known fringe "news" outlet that on any given day will have stories about the "murders" that Barack Obama "committed" when he lived in Chicago and "shocking interviews" with Chicago drug dealers and pedophiles who claim they sold crack to Obama and had gay sex with him. Oh, and of course, they have lots of stories about the "fact" of Obama's Kenyan birth. How a submission with a link to WND got past the slashdot editors is beyond me.

Then, and here's the misdirection part, it immediately links to unrelated articles about COINTELPRO and the US Air Force's plan to start blogs.

There's one bit of truth in this article, though, and that's a link to an abstract of a paper that Professor Sunstein wrote 2 years ago this week. If you're willing to drill down and actually read the paper itself, you'll find nothing that suggests anything like COINTELPRO or "destroying freedom of expression" as the Anonymous Coward GP suggests.

Seriously, this article is some serious baloney and if you care at all about the truth, I ask that you dig a little bit and see for yourself if this smear attempt of a brilliant and decent constitutional scholar should be allowed to stand unchallenged.

This kind of stuff went on back in Tailgunner Joe McCarthy's day and a lot of people's lives and careers were destroyed by right-wing jackoffs playing these games of lies, misdirection and guilt by association. I guess every half a century or so decent people have to smack this kind of smear-mongering down and chase these trolls like "megamerican" back into the sewers of history.

Take a minute and look into Cass Sunstein yourselves, and watch out for this kind of drive-by bullshit.

It is in no way a violation of freedom of speech to put information out there to clarify a certain point of view but it's the essence of freedom of speech.

From TFA:

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

Banning people from "conspiracy theorizing" sounds a heck of a lot more serious than "put information out there to clarify", it sounds like they consider banning "conspiracy theorizing." Which is a ludicrous policy. Almost any definition of "conspiracy theory" would mandate them to take action against almost all criticism of the government, the state or any of its institutions or representatives. Will it be illegal to levy claims of criminal activities against an elected representatives since it will be a "conspiracy theory"? I can imagine a fairly wide range of ways such a policy could be mis-used; if you even consider the original use legitimate.

Banning people from saying that the government is corrupt, or committing acts they disagree with, is a great injustice. It can only lead to a greater credence to their claims, and with policies such as argued for by Sunstein one starts to feel an increasing drag towards becoming one of these radical voices critical of what the government wants people to accept as justified.

There's a reason for this, there's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better. Don't look for it. Be happy with what you've got... because the owners of this country don't want that.

I'm talking about the real owners now... the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want.

They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin' years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin' retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all from you sooner or later 'cause they own this fuckin' place. It's a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club. By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: white collar, blue collar, it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hard-working people continue -- these are people of modest means -- continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about them.

They don't give a fuck about you. They don't give a fuck about you. They don't care about you at all! At all! At all! And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes every day, because the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American Dream, 'cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

Except for the domestic spying, bailing out banks, starting two failfrak wars and presiding over an administration that outspent the liberal Clinton administration Bish never exceeded his powers... Right... What planet have you been on these last eight years by chance because it sure as hell isn't Earth.

First, the domestic spying was still for national defense, trying to stop terrorism. Still you can't deny that Obama is doing domestic spying, except for political purposes, wanted Bush to bail out the banks and passed a stimulus package that made the bank bailouts look like lunch at McDonalds, continuing and expanding wars from the Bush administration, and greatly outspent any single year of the Bush presidency... Hell outspent ANY year from ANY president in the history of this country... and your still b

Yeah, cause it was that hugely liberal president and Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that has been the progenitor of all of these stupid policies to follow. Oh wait, you mean it was a Republican president and Republic-controlled House and Senate that passed such policies?

The Senate was controlled by the Democrats when the Patriot Act passed. You may recall that sometime during the summer in 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords [wikipedia.org] left the GOP and decided to caucus with the Democrats. He broke the 50-50 tie that had given the GOP control of the chamber (via Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote) and made Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the majority leader.

The Democratically controlled Senate then passed the patriot act by a vote of 98-1 [senate.gov]. Every single Democrat but two voted for it. Feingold vote

As an outsider who used to be a liberal, I find conservatives' fixation on Barbara Streisand to be utterly bizarre. When I was a liberal, the only times I ever thought about Barbara Streisand were when conservative wackadoos got enraged over things she said or did -- and that was just long enough to think "Barbara Streisand? Huh? Who gives a shit?" The other liberals I knew had more or less the same reaction.

Now that I've moved to a position outside that of the R vs. D "Go team!" demographics, I think I grasp the foundation of the problem: modern conservative politics, lacking much in the way of coherent principles since Goldwater went down, has to appeal to emotion. Consequently, the conservative hate machine is born, and every two minutes, there has to be a new Two Minutes Hate, and a constant cycling of new targets for hatred. Otherwise conservatives might stop being angry for a moment and start thinking for themselves. This would be as dangerous for Republican politicians as if the Democratic base really sat down and thought about what they actually want and whether their politicians ever showed any inclination of giving it to them. (No, being the answer to that. The Democratic party is a self-contained, self-interested machine at this point.)

Then again, I guess that "Streisand Effect" is also easier for conservatives to stomach than "Nixon Effect", the real modern archetype of an individual who made things worse by trying to hush everything up.

That has a recording of her appearing at a George McGovern ('72 Democratic presidential candidate) fund-raising event, smoking a joint between songs, saying as I recall something like - "We have to face our problems head-on!"

What does any of your drivel have to do with my point that she's monumentally unqualified and unprepared for the job of VP?

It proves my point that PDS exists and you are exhibition B. See, you can sit there all day and accuse me of/ignoring/ the fact that Palin is not qualified for VP, all while you/ignore/ that Palin had just as many years political experience as Obama, and all of it executive, just like the job of president, while Obama had zero executive experience. His experience consisted of sitting on boards and working in legislative bodies. He shared the responsibility with everyone else around him and came up with

Oh no! That's not mental fatigue, that's their mind-control satellite preventing you from concocting further conspiracy theories! It's too late for you, brother, but don't worry. I'll fight on, spreading the truth about the critical role Fluoride and the Cadbury Bunny played in the 9/11 attacks... as soon as I get some Tylenol... Ow...

By floating this, he's ensured that participants in these groups, who by definition are more suspicious than most, will now be paranoid that their peers are government infiltrators. They'll be less open with each other, and may quit altogether. And the Man doesn't even have to follow through to have this effect-- it's totally free! Well played, fascist.

Of course, social interaction may be the last thing holding some of the target audience from going lone gunman, but you can't make an omelette without killing a few people. At least, I can't. And the more incidents we have, the more funding the security apparatus gets. There is no downside!

He ought to be fired for being stupid enough to think the government should waste even a penny dealing with conspiracy theorists. Just ignore them. It works just fine. Sure, they pop up now and then, but really, think about it: Of all the various theories about the Kennedy assassination, what do any of them matter in the long run? How does it really affect the government? It doesn't.

All the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have accomplished what? Pretty much nothing.

The more important question is: Who gets to decide who is the conspiracy theorists? That's where the real danger is. Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.

Why not link in HuffingtonPost, FreeRepublic, and MichaelMoore.com while you're at it.;)

For those who care about the actual paper [ssrn.com] rather than the right-wing spin of it:

--------

Abstract:Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.------

Note how the Slashdot header linked to COINTELPRO, to imply that that's what's being talked about? Even in the *scenario* where infiltration is discussed, the paper explicitly states, "By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions." The paper is about how (or whether to) dispel conspiracy theories to prevent them from spreading, not to prosecute the individuals who promote them. Cognitive infiltration is discussed (again, in purely theoretical terms) in not just a covert manner, but also an overt manner. A lot (although not all) of the paper also is about overseas actions against muslim radical organizations, too, giving examples of tactics we're already employing to dispel conspiracy theories that help fuel terrorist organizations. Anyone who doesn't realize that our government actively employs propaganda even against non-conspiracy-theories isn't paying attention.

Now, all of that said, Sunstein does come across in the end as as supporting debunking conspiracy theories which can "create or fuel violence" by "rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cogitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks." Which form of cognitive infiltration discussed -- covert or overt -- is not mentioned, nor is whether this is a reference to domestic, international, or both kinds of conspiracy theories.

I disagree, but it's not as radical of a paper as it's being made out to be.

Few things have annoyed me as much as when I worked inside a particular three-letter acronym department than watching the public debate about something totally inflammatory while the department was unambiguously in the right by any reasonable standard, but the policy was to not engage in the debate with anyone but Congress. Of course, many members of Congress were fanning the flames for their own political gain without the slightest actual interest in the real (lack of a) problem. This wasn't a matter of va

People should be encouraged to explore their theories, not prevented from thinking about them.

And when people start telling others that vaccines are really bad for you (thus endangering the whole population with an outbreak of measles, mumps, rubella...), should a CDC representative, after identifying themselves, offer a counter point? I fail to see how a public official engaging a possible lunatic without hiding their identity is a threat to freedom.

If you don't believe that public officials should engage the public, you must have a very poor opinion of many of the Founding Old White Guys.

Okay, thanks for straightening that out, but I think your analysis evades a crucial point: why does the government *care* about conspiracy theorists and what they think?

The newspaper I work for published an article the other day about a flu vaccination clinic being offered by the local health department. The first few comments posted to the online version were all copypasta from Infowars (a conspiracy-theory site) alleging that flu vaccines are deliberate mass-murder tools used by a shadowy one-world organization to engage in "softkill eugenics" and wipe out people who oppose them. This is an extreme example, of course, but it shows a real problem: if enough people believe even relatively mild conspiracy theories about flu vaccines, then they'll refuse to get vaccinated and public health -- something it's the government's job to promote and maintain -- will suffer. This means that rebutting and refuting such theories becomes a part of the government's job, as furthering the goal of public health.

To me this reads like a complete admission that government has little or nothing to fear from standard media, which is something I've felt for a long time. And they think I should be giving them my money or that Google should be paying them for their worthless prattling of the establishment line.

Try shooting someone who's done nothing physical against you, even a provocateur, and we'll see how long you get to keep your "Second Amendment" Gun. BTW, Rene, are you making an implicit threat against some future government agent who might just want to talk?

Nothing physical? Like enter my home without a warrant through an unlocked door and refuse to leave when asked?

Your point might be that I might be deprived of my gun dare I use it to protect my liberty, and you might be right. In fact, I might even be

If you read the damn paper, you will learn that a banning of such sites is listed as one of many responses that could be taken, but the author pointedly did not suggest that actually be done. The bulk of the paper focuses on when and how the govt. should attempt to counter conspiracy theories.

As far as the govt. infiltrating groups that propound conspiracy theories: This is stated as a mechanism for the govt. to sow its own views into the groups, not as a law-enforcement mechanism. I view this as nothing more than speech. Just as citizens can speak, so can the government. If Joe Random Citizen can join a group and talk about random B.S., why can Joe Random PR-Flack not do the same?

Post anything negative to a Twitter-aware company like Comcast, and they connect you with somebody from corporate who will set right whatever you're complaining about. What's the difference between that and the Air Force wanting to debate people spreading inaccurate information about them?

If you allow comments on your blog... that's something who disagree with you can use.

Call me gullible, but why is that concept so laughable? Sure, WND's article about is is really bad writing, but the idea that soy (which does have a lot of estrogen) being fed to babies affects them doesn't seem outlandish at all. When a man gets a "gender change," isn't estrogen the main ingredient to the prescriptions?

I mean, I don't care about people who think the moon landing is fake. Let them spend their time thinking that. It doesn't hurt me. What does hurt me is _my_ hard earned money being used for a useless cause.

It even states in TFA that "some conspiracy theories, under [their] definition, have turned out to be true." So why spend time and energy arguing potentially the wrong side?

Don't let yourself get bent out of shape over this. Read the paper which is being quoted by the article before you start believing nonsense and posting your own. The Klein article misrepresents and quotes out of context. For example, here is the Cass Sunstein quote that Aaron Klein picks and edits to his liking:

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial
or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do,
what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1)
Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind
of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government
might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy
theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in
counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such
parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential
effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions.
However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration
of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Note the last sentence. Sunstein leaves the 2 points quoted by Klein out of the recommendation. The paper itself is somewhat insightful and worth a skim. There are things to disagree with perhaps, but this isn't some civil liberty crushing maniac.

advocated in a recent paper the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups that advocate 'conspiracy theories'[first link]... Sunstein has also recently advocated banning websites which post 'right-wing rumors' and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.[second link]

What's interesting about these two bits of the summary is that both are based on the same article by Sunstein, summarized differently by different wingnut websites. I have to conclude that the submitter didn't read the article. At all. Hey, I can quote out of context as well as the next guy:

government may do best to ignore conspiracy theories and theorists even if it justifiably fears that they will haveharmful effects, because government action may make things worse.

Does that quote misrepresent the article? Yes, it does. But actually, less than the summary does, since Sunstein actually advocates 'ignore' in some circumstances. However - bans? If you read the article you'd see that banning is an option he explicitly rejects!! (clue: its option 1 of 5, where only 3, 4, 5 make the cut; its the only time the word 'ban' appears in the paper...). There might be something interesting to say about this article. But the stuff you've linked to in the summary, and the summary itself? That's just so far off target, its not even a decent starting point for a conversation.

Can we get back to the news for nerds, where someone claims Knuth advocates using O(n^2) algorithms, just because he mentions them (rolls eyes)

However, there ARE people out there who practice irresponsible dissent, and their sole purpose is to disrupt the lives of everyone in order to make a point which most find irrational. I am all for these people getting shut down, so long as those who are responsible and do not infringe on the liberty of others are left in peace.

The question is, who gets to decide which is which? It would be very easy for a government engaged in an unjust war to label peace protesters as "irresponsible dissenters" and have them shut up.

In answer to your question, it would probably be the Supreme Court. This sort of First Amendment issue has been explored fairly thoroughly, so the cases would likely be predictable with regard to the censure of a person related to their speech.

You're more likely to find the interesting bits surrounding the various press offices of government orginizations. They have a responsibility to engage and inform the people regarding their work and to clarify matters that are widely misunderstood. I'm not aware

What on earth do you consider irresponsible dissent? Publicly asking for a birth certificate from the president of the US on your TV show? Or do you consider it something more disruptive, like the sit-ins and freedom rides that happened during the civil rights movement?

I can think of a lot of inane things out there, from birthers to truthers to GNAA, but those people are just annoying. A good moderation system like slashdot's can fix all of them.

This isn't talking about a moderation system, this is talking about sponsoring bloggers to try to influence public perception. This is like what Nixon did, he had a letter-writing organization that would write tens of thousands of letters to news agencies trying to get them to change their programming. The ONLY time infiltrative deception is acceptable is if the organization is criminal, like the mafia. You shouldn't be trying to infiltrate tea-partier groups, even if you disagree with their politics.

The only thing I can think of that would be irresponsible dissent would be something like starting your own militia and invading your neighboring town, and even that in some cases would be morally acceptable. I mean, we have people who are literally trying to secede from the union, and that is alright. But if that isn't irresponsible, what is?

In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it does not qualify whether that speech is "responsible", "irresponsible" or any shade in between.

The courts are really confused on many free speech point. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is apparently "irresponsible," and is therefore not covered under free speech. On the other hand, getting paid to lie while simultaneously calling your lies "news" is apparently protected free speech. Attempting to call attention to these lies, on the other hand, is apparently not free speech. Demonstrating outside of a designated "free speech" zone is apparently "irresponsible" and therefore is not protected

I served in the Air force, winning a Top Performer award and >= 90% on both my CDC's. I will hereby post a jargon-riddled screed in the hopes of attracting Air Force shills. The reason why I'm doing this is because this [wired.com] is totally disgusting and waaay outside the domain of military duty. You're probably not PsyOps, and this sure as hell ain't post-liberation Iraq or pre-liberation Iran. Here goes:

AF are not hardcore. The majority of you are basically civilians, and your dress uniform attests to that fact. As a result, most of you tend to lack camaraderie and have unwarranted elitist attitudes.

AF are spineless. They do not shit between their boots. Snitching was very commonplace inside tech school and out, and the AF even implemented a "wingman" program in tech school - you carried around a card saying that you will snitch out your wingman and watch him at all times for trouble. As a true-life example, a young female airman gave her friends a ride home from a club because they were drunk. Turns out that one of them had a gun. She had no idea, and still received a letter of reprimand for doing what she thought was the right thing.

The maintenance field in the AF is grossly unfair with regard to gender. The majority of the AF are men, but women were overrepresented in my career field with regard to awards like STEP. All of the females in my shop who won awards were mediocre compared to many deserving males, even our tech school instructors attested to that. One female even got a sympathy award, as well as a free baby shower, just for being single and pregnant.

OSI. In addition to their full-time investigators, OSI recruits airmen as snitch patrols to infiltrate social circles and gather data on who associates with what, etc. See that one guy at the party who's been nursing the same beer all night? That's the one. I was dragged out of bed by the first sergeant and interrogated by OSI(in a room with a 1-way mirror and 2 interrogators), asking me what I knew about airmen using drugs. After an hour or two of frustration, they finally said "No, on the night of so-and-so you smelled something. What did you smell?" I had no idea what they were talking about until I figured out weeks later that I had made a joke about how a certain kind of Djarum [wikipedia.org] BD "smelled like weed". You can get used to stuff like that when you're in the Air Force, everybody's interrogated in a similar fashion at least once. And, of course, they can bug you and request your internet traffic and all that jazz.

Other Airforce or Ex-Airforce, please jump in and share your experiences.

I guess the whole infiltration thing will convince the conspiracy theorists that they were right all along, and anyone who questions their theories can now be dismissed as a government infiltrator:/

The authors explicitly acknowledge that:

In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections.

You mean the part where they accurately show his proposed ideas for how to deal with dissenters?

Just because people don't like how Obama is rapidly trying to turn the United States of American in the the Orwellian States of America doesn't mean that they are "hysterical" - that means that, unlike you, they give a damn about their rights, freedom, and about the principles this country was founded on.